Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists

Jeff Tollefson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00396-y

IF: 64.8

2024-02-10

Nature

Abstract:Jury awards Mann more than US 1 million — raising hopes for scientists who are politically attacked because of their work.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Leading climate scientist Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit

Gareth Iacobucci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q401

2024-02-15

BMJ

Abstract:The climate scientist Michael Mann has been awarded $1m (£0.8m; €0.9m) in a defamation lawsuit against two writers who compared his scientific work to that of a former football coach who was convicted of child molestation.In a statement posted on Mann's X account,1 one of his legal team, Pete Fontaine, said, "Today's verdict vindicates Mike Mann's good name and reputation. It also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet."The lawsuit, first brought in 2012, centred on articles by Rand Simberg, a former scholar for the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, and Mark Steyn, a Canadian writer and presenter who was writing for the National Review at the time. Their criticisms related to Mann's renowned "hockey stick" graph, first published in Nature in 1998, which illustrated the sharp rise in average global temperature in the...

medicine, general & internal
Jury rules noted climate scientist was defamed

Paul Voosen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6438

IF: 56.9

2024-02-16

Science

Abstract:Verdict punishes bloggers who compared Michael Mann’s work to molestation

multidisciplinary sciences
Passion is not misconduct

H Holden Thorp,H. Holden Thorp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6275

IF: 56.9

2024-02-23

Science

Abstract:University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann was awarded more than $1 million in a lawsuit against bloggers who accused him of scientific misconduct in inflammatory terms, likening his treatment of data to what a noted child molester did to children. The verdict suggests that there are limits to which scientists working on politically sensitive topics can be falsely attacked. But the case also says something profound about the difference between matters of opinion and scientific interpretations that can be worked out through normal academic processes. Although Mann has expressed strong—and even intemperate—emotions and words in political discourse, the finding of the District of Columbia Superior Court boiled down to the fact that it is not an opinion that determines when scientific misconduct occurs but rather, misconduct can be established using known processes.

multidisciplinary sciences
'Vindicated': Embattled misinformation researchers celebrate key US Supreme Court decision

Jeff Tollefson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01766-2

IF: 64.8

2024-06-27

Nature

Abstract:The justices rule that the US government can keep talking to scientists and social-media firms with the aim of curbing falsehoods online. The justices rule that the US government can keep talking to scientists and social-media firms with the aim of curbing falsehoods online.

multidisciplinary sciences
Scientists under arrest: the researchers taking action over climate change

Daniel Grossman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00480-3

IF: 64.8

2024-02-22

Nature

Abstract:Fed up with a lack of political progress in solving the climate problem, some researchers are becoming activists to slow global warming. Fed up with a lack of political progress in solving the climate problem, some researchers are becoming activists to slow global warming.

multidisciplinary sciences
New probe finds misconduct by star botanist

Charles Piller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr0290

IF: 56.9

2024-06-15

Science

Abstract:Steven Newmaster had been cleared, but fresh inquiry concludes he likely made up data

multidisciplinary sciences
Climate Law: Path Paved for Civil Action

Yali Si,Herbert H. T. Prins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/523410e

IF: 64.8

2015-01-01

Nature

Abstract:The Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change last month concluded that climate change is a risk to public health (N. Watts et al. Lancet http://doi.org/56b; 2015). In the same week, a Dutch court ordered the government of the Netherlands to improve its reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to protect the population from harm and to keep the country habitable by safeguarding the environment (see Nature http://doi.org/559; 2015). We suggest that this court order is closely studied by other countries. If governments do not act, they should expect lawsuits from families who lost relatives during, say, the heatwaves in Europe in 2003 or in Pakistan and India this year.
Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty, Media Perceptions, and Presumed Media Effects

Senja Post,Natalia Ramirez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018769668

2018-04-25

Abstract:Partisans in mediated conflicts usually perceive hostile news media, anticipate undesired media effects, and intend to engage discursively. It is hypothesized that hostile media perceptions also encourage polarizing communication. This is tested for scientists involved in a politicized science dispute. German climate scientists ( n = 131) firmly believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Yet not all dismiss alternative hypotheses altogether. Results indicate that the more certain climate scientists are of AGW, the more they perceive that the news media downplay AGW and presume that the media nourish politicians’ doubts about it. This explains their justifications of overstatements of scientific findings in public.

communication
Guns for hire? The independence of forensic scientists and why it matters

Justice Stephen Hall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2024.2422700

2024-11-16

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract:I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my associate, Melanie Owens, in undertaking research for this address. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1. Wood v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 21; (2012) 84 NSWLR 581, 621 [736]. 2. R v Wood [2008] NSWSC 1273. 3. Cross R, Evidence for Murder: How Physics Convicted a Killer New South Publishing; 2009. 4. Wood v The Queen 617 [716]. 5. Wood v The Queen 617 [717]. 6. Wood v The Queen 620 [731]. 7. Wood v The Queen 620 [731]. 8. Wood v The Queen 620 [731]. 9. Wood v The Queen 625 [758]. 10. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [96]. 11. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [99]. 12. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [99]. 13. See R v Clark [2000] EWCA Crim 54. 14. See Criminal Appeals Act 1995 (UK) s 9(1). 15. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [6]. 16. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [100] - [101]. 17. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [102]. 18. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [175]. 19. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [108]. 20. R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 [177] - [178]. 21. 'Royal Statistical Society concerned by issues raised in Sally Clark case', Royal Statistical Society (News Release, 23 October 2001). 22. Peter Green, 'Letter from the President to the Lord Chancellor regarding the use of statistical evidence in court cases', Royal Statistical Society (23 January 2022). 23. Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCH 146 (Admin) [5], [49], [52], [56]; Clare Dyer, 'Professor Roy Meadow struck off', (2005) 331 BMJ 177, 177. 24. Dyer 177. 25. 'Meadow ruling "risk to witnesses"', BBC News (16 July 2005). 26. Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCH 146 (Admin), upheld on appeal in Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390. 27. Sara Gaines & David Pallister, 'Sally Clark's death accidental, coroner rules', The Guardian (7 November 2007). 28. Clare Dyer, 'Mother convicted of killing her children is freed on appeal', (2005) 330 BMJ 861, 861. 29. National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer) [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68 [81] [82]. 30. Supreme Court of Western Australia Consolidated Practice Directions, 'Expert Evidence', 4.5.2. 31. Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650. 32. Whitehouse v Jordan [1980] 1 All ER 650, 655. 33. Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246, 256. 34. Phosphate Cooperative Co of Australia Pty Ltd v Shears [1989] VR 665. 35. Phosphate Cooperative Co of Australia Pty Ltd v Shears [1989] VR 665, 683. 36. Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd and Others v Sharman License Holdings Ltd and Others [2005] FCA 1242; 222 FCR 465. 37. Universal Music Australia v Sharman License Holdings 518 [231]. 38. Bank Of Ireland v Watts Group Plc [2017] EWHC 1667 (TCC) [70] (Coulson J). 39. Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 7) (2003) FCA 893; (2003) 130 FCR 424. 40. Harrington-Smith v WA 427 [19], 429 [27]. 41. Federal Court of Australia, Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT) , [3.1]. 42. Layla Ferris, 'No, the government is not controlling the weather. "It's so stupid, it's got to stop", Biden says'. CBS News (2024 October 9). 43. Oliver Milman, '"It's mindblowing": US meteorologists face death threats as hurricane conspiracies surge'. The Guardian (2024 October 11).

medicine, legal
Human- Induced Climate Change Arguments Offered By Those Who Dissent

Michael B. McElroy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190490331.003.0009

2016-01-01

Abstract:Chapter 4 presented an extensive account of current understanding of climate change. The evidence that humans are having an important impact on the global climate system is scientifically compelling. And yet there are those who disagree and refuse to accept the evidence. Some of the dissent is based on a visceral feeling that the world is too big for humans to have the capacity to change it. Some is grounded, I believe, on ideology, on an instinctive distrust of science combined with a suspicion of govern¬ment, amplified by a feeling that those in authority are trying to use the issue to advance some other agenda, to increase taxes, for example. More insidious are dissenting views expressed by scientists on the opinion pages of influential newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). If scientists disagree, the implication for the public is that there is no urgency: we can afford to wait until the dust settles before deciding to take action— or not, as the case may be. Missing in the discourse triggered by these communications is the fact that, with few exceptions, the authors of these articles are not well informed on climate science. To put it bluntly, their views reflect personal opinion and in some cases explicit prejudice rather than objective analysis. Their communications are influential, nonetheless, and demand a response. I begin by addressing some of the general sentiments expressed by those who are either on the fence as to the significance of human- induced climate change or who may already have made up their minds that the issue is part of an elaborate hoax to mislead the public. There are a number of recurrent themes: The data purporting to show that the world is warming have been manipu-lated by climate scientists to enhance their funding or for other self- serving reasons.Climate science is complicated; scientists cannot predict the weather. Why should we believe that they could tell us what is going to happen a decade or more in the future? The planet has been warmer in the past; we survived and maybe even prospered.
Divisive Sun-dimming study at Harvard cancelled: what's next?

Jeff Tollefson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00876-1

IF: 64.8

2024-03-29

Nature

Abstract:As the climate crisis rages on, advocacy for testing controversial solar geoengineering technology is ramping up. As the climate crisis rages on, advocacy for testing controversial solar geoengineering technology is ramping up.

multidisciplinary sciences
New legal aid fund for sleuths

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp1968

IF: 56.9

2024-03-15

Science

Abstract:Investor pledges $1 million for science whistleblowers

multidisciplinary sciences
It's final: the Anthropocene is not an epoch, despite protest over vote

Alexandra Witze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00868-1

IF: 64.8

2024-03-21

Nature

Abstract:Governing body upholds earlier decision by geoscientists amid drama. Governing body upholds earlier decision by geoscientists amid drama.

multidisciplinary sciences
Climate change—that is not real! A comparative analysis of climate-sceptic think tanks in the USA and Germany

Timo Busch,Lena Judick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-02962-z

2021-01-01

Climatic Change

Abstract:Abstract The science is clear: climate change is real. In 2015, 195 countries adopted the global climate deal in Paris. Nonetheless, numerous well-organized conservative think tanks (CTTs) deny that climate change is happening. We ask what kind of counterclaims are used by climate-sceptic CTTs and to what extent these counterclaims change over time. We analyse about 2500 blog articles from prominent CTTs in the USA and Germany between 2008 and 2016. Our results show that sceptical arguments about climate policy and science dominate the countermovement. At the same time, we detect that the prevalence of counterclaims is CTT-specific and that US think tanks show a greater variability compared to their German counterparts. In a surprising outcome, we find that the Paris Agreement did not affect the climate denial movement. Based on these insights, we discuss our contributions to social movement research in the climate change denial context and derive conclusions for pro-climate campaigns.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
The Bryson synthesis: The forging of climate change narratives during the World Food Crisis

Robert L Naylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889722000266

Abstract:During the first half of the 1970s, climate research gained a new significance and began to be perceived within political and academic circles as being worthy of public support. Conventional explanations for this increased status include a series of climate anomalies that generated awareness and heightened concern over the potentially devastating effects of climate change. Controversial climatologist Reid Bryson was one of the first to publicly promote what he saw as a definitive link between these climate anomalies and unidirectional climate change in the fall of 1973, and rising food prices in the same year gave him a platform on which to air his views to receptive senior members of the US Congress. Bryson's testimony before a US Senate subcommittee offers a unique glimpse into how he was able to successfully resonate his agenda with that of senior politicians in a time of crisis, as well as the immediate responses of those senior US politicians upon first hearing climate change arguments. Bryson was one of the most prominent US climatologists to break a taboo against making bold climatological predictions and de-facto policy recommendations in public. As a result, although Bryson was criticized by many in the climatological community, his actions instigated the involvement of other scientists in the public arena, leading to an important elevation in US public climate discourse.
The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy

Yotam Ophir,Dror Walter,Patrick E. Jamieson,Kathleen Hall Jamieson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2357571

2024-05-28

Journal of Health Communication

Abstract:Differential media treatment of climate change, including conservative media's tendency to reject the anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus, has reinforced polarized perceptions of climate change. Studies have found differences in coverage patterns and in perceptions among those relying more heavily on conservative rather than liberal or moderate media. This scholarship has been limited by narrow measurements of media exposure, climate-related outcomes, and the mechanism of effects. We analyzed nationally representative US data ( N = 1,181) using measures that included not only reported use of mainstream print, cable, and social media captured in past research, but also science programming, as well as far-right, alternative-health, and Christian media. On average, participants relied more heavily on centrist and liberal media, followed by Fox News and social media. The results corroborate findings associating exposure to centrist media with pro-climate attitudes, and conservative media, including Fox News with the opposite views. Use of far-right outlets was associated with the lowest levels of belief in anthropogenic climate change, perceptions of personal threat, and support for climate-friendly policy. Reliance on science media was associated with pro-climate views. Most associations were mediated via perceptions of science and scientists (using the Factors Associated with Self-Presentation of Science, FASS scale).

information science & library science,communication
Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement

Viktoria Cologna,Reto Knutti,Naomi Oreskes,Michael Siegrist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac

IF: 6.7

2021-01-21

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Abstract Scientists’ role in outreach and advocacy has been debated extensively, but empirical evidence on its perceived legitimacy is scarce. We contacted scientists researching climate change to investigate scientists’ engagement levels, as well as expectations regarding political and public engagement. We then compared how scientists ( N = 1107) and German and US citizens ( N = 884) view scientists’ engagement and how scientists’ advocacy affects their credibility. We find that perceptions differ across countries, with scientists perceiving more strongly than the public that scientists should politically and publicly engage. However, the public agrees that scientists should engage, and that they should increase these efforts. The majority of citizens agrees that scientists should advocate for climate-related policies and work closely with policymakers but refrain from endorsing climate protests. Further, openly supporting climate policies does not adversely affect scientists’ perceived trustworthiness or honesty, while it negatively affects perceptions of scientists’ objectivity. Our study provides empirical evidence that can help climate change researchers to better understand the public’s demand for, and perceived legitimacy of, different engagement activities.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
What Trump's election win could mean for AI, climate and health

Jeff Tollefson,Max Kozlov,Mariana Lenharo,Traci Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03667-w

IF: 64.8

2024-11-09

Nature

Abstract:Donald Trump made numerous promises during his presidential campaign that could affect scientists and science policy. Will they be implemented once he is president? Donald Trump made numerous promises during his presidential campaign that could affect scientists and science policy. Will they be implemented once he is president?

multidisciplinary sciences
Climate science and YouTube: deniers, memes, and Trojan horses

Simon Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-22696

2020-03-23

Abstract:<p>YouTube is the world's second largest search engine, and serves as a primary source of entertainment for billions of people around the world. Yet while science communication on the website is more popular than ever, discussion of climate science is dominated by - largely scientifically untrained - individuals who are skeptical of the overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. Over the past ten years I have built up an extensive audience communicating science - and climate science in particular - on YouTube, attempting to place credible science in the forefront of the discussion. In this talk I will discuss my approach to making content for the website, dissect successful and less successful projects, review feedback from my audience, and break down my process of converting research into entertaining, educational video content.</p>
Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering

Joachim Allgaier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036

2019-07-25

Frontiers in Communication

Abstract:The online video-sharing website YouTube is extremely popular globally, also as a tool for information on science and environmental topics. However, only little is known about what kind of information users find when they are searching for information about climate science, climate change, and climate engineering on YouTube. This contribution presents results from an exploratory research project that investigates whether videos found on YouTube adhere to or challenge scientific consensus views. Ten search terms were employed to search for and analyze 200 videos about climate and climate modification topics, which are contested topics in online media. The online anonymization tool Tor has been used for the randomization of the sample and to avoid personalization of the results. A heuristic qualitative classification tool was set up to categorize the videos in the sample. Eighty-nine videos of the 200 videos in the sample are supporting scientific consensus views about anthropogenic climate change, and climate scientists are discussing climate topics with deniers of climate change in four videos in the sample. Unexpectedly, the majority of the videos in the sample (107 videos) supports worldviews that are opposing scientific consensus views: 16 videos deny anthropogenic climate change and 91 videos in the sample propagate straightforward conspiracy theories about climate engineering and climate change. Videos supporting the scientific mainstream view received only slightly more views (16,941,949 views in total) than those opposing the mainstream scientific position (16,939,655 views in total). Consequences for the public communication of climate change and climate engineering are discussed in the second part of the article. The research presented in this contribution is particularly interested in finding out more about strategically distorted communications about climate change and climate engineering in online environments and in critically analyzing them.

Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists

Leading climate scientist Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit

Jury rules noted climate scientist was defamed

Passion is not misconduct

'Vindicated': Embattled misinformation researchers celebrate key US Supreme Court decision

Scientists under arrest: the researchers taking action over climate change

New probe finds misconduct by star botanist

Climate Law: Path Paved for Civil Action

Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty, Media Perceptions, and Presumed Media Effects

Guns for hire? The independence of forensic scientists and why it matters

Human- Induced Climate Change Arguments Offered By Those Who Dissent

Divisive Sun-dimming study at Harvard cancelled: what's next?

New legal aid fund for sleuths

It's final: the Anthropocene is not an epoch, despite protest over vote

Climate change—that is not real! A comparative analysis of climate-sceptic think tanks in the USA and Germany

The Bryson synthesis: The forging of climate change narratives during the World Food Crisis

The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy

Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement

What Trump's election win could mean for AI, climate and health

Climate science and YouTube: deniers, memes, and Trojan horses

Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube: Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering